Hillary Clinton Lies About Her Mishandling of Classified Information

Hillary Clinton Lies About Her Mishandling of Classified Information

Katie Pavlich

|

 @KatiePavlich

|

Two time failed presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took to Twitter Tuesday to falsely claim she never mishandled classified information. 

But in July 2016, the FBI confirmed Clinton did in fact grossly mishandle a number of classified documents, which she stored on a private and unsecured email server in her bathroom. Despite this fact, prosecutors declined to bring charges against her. 

"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities," Comey said. "From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification."

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent," Comey continued.  

Further, the comparison between President Donald Trump's handling of classified information to Hillary Clinton's negligence is a case of apples and oranges. Presidents have the ability to declassify material. Secretaries of State do not. 

Recommended

Dems: A Killer on Every Block and Two Rapists in Every Backyard

Ann Coulter

Former Supreme Court clerk Mike Davis recently explained: 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/09/07/hillary-clinton-lies-about-her-mishandling-of-classified-information-n2612757

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) speaks at Freedom Tour in Illinois on Sept. 1, 2021. (Dep. Devin Nunes/Screenshot via NTD)

2022 MIDTERM ELECTIONS

Devin Nunes Sees Parallels Between Russia Investigation and the Raid on Mar-a-Lago

By Jeff Louderback

 

0:006:23

The FBI’s raid on Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago represents another example of the Democratic party’s objective to politically “target” and “destroy” the former president, according to former U.S. Rep. and current Trump Media and Technology Group CEO Devin Nunes.

On Aug. 8, Trump released a statement saying that “a large group of FBI agents” raided his home at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla.

He called it a “weaponization of the justice system” and an “attack by the radical left Democrats who desperately don’t want me to run for president in 2024.”

In a press release, Trump added, “They even broke into my safe!”

The events of Aug. 8 were about “people that are after power, trying to destroy their political enemies, which is what happens in Third World countries where one party works to destroy the other party,” Nunes told The Epoch Times.

“It’s been nonstop for five years against [former] president Trump because, look, he was a disrupter,” Nunes said.

“He was not somebody from politics. He had never worked in Washington. And he came in and said, ‘Look, we’re going to do things differently. And he shocked the ruling class in this country. And they’ve never forgiven him.”

Trump is under scrutiny for a variety of issues that range from the U.S. Capitol breach on Jan. 6, 2021, to his family’s business dealings.

The FBI converged on Mar-a-Lago reportedly in pursuit of evidence on whether Trump mishandled classified information when he took White House documents with him upon leaving Washington on Jan. 20, 2021.

Trump, who was investigated by the FBI over now discredited allegations of colluding with Russians in the 2016 presidential campaign, has yet to announce if he will run for president in 2024, but many political pundits believe that will happen.

Nunes was a U.S. Rep. for California’s 21st Congressional District and the state’s 22nd Congressional District from 2003 to 2022 before resigning to join the Trump group.

He served as Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee from 2015 to 2019.

From the executive branch to the Department of Justice and all of the intelligence agencies, “Democrats and their propaganda machine in the media have normalized this type of bad behavior,” Nunes said.

“Well, look, we know for sure back in 2016, he was definitely targeted by the Obama-Biden administration, working with the Clinton campaign and working with dirty cops at Department of Justice and the FBI,” Nunes said.

“It’s actually moved up into the judicial branch of government,” Nunes said. “Supreme Court justices were targeted. We had leaks of information from the Supreme Court first time in history.

“Now you have a raid on [former] president Trump’s house, the first time that’s ever happened to any president in history for what appears to be complete nonsense. I mean, it’s crazy.”

In a Truth Social post on Aug. 10, Trump wrote, “In early June, the DOJ and FBI asked my legal representatives to put an extra lock on the door leading to the place where boxes were stored in Mar-a-Lago—we agreed,” Trump explained. “They were shown the secured area, and the boxes themselves.

“Then on Monday, without notification or warning, an army of agents broke into Mar-a-Lago, went to the same storage area, and ripped open the lock that they had asked to be installed. A surprise attack, politics, and all the while our country is going to hell!” Trump added.

Trump’s allegations add more questions about whether the raid was justified and appropriate.

The Department of Justice and the FBI have declined to comment on the issue. The search warrant is currently sealed.

Christina Bobb, who is Trump’s lawyer, confirmed that federal agents were searching for presidential records at Mar-a-Lago during the raid, and she told The Epoch Times, “Nothing had been hidden and nothing had been kept secret from them, which makes this all the more ridiculous.”

“Donald Trump didn’t commit a crime,” she said. “They would have to lay the foundation that Donald Trump actually packed up his own office, and Donald Trump was actually the custodian of these records, and that he actually moved them.”

Nunes was outspoken against the FBI’s investigation of Trump’s campaign when he was Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee. He sees parallels between that probe and the raid on Mar-a-Lago.

“A lot of the same people who were ‘Russia hoaxers’. These people have now been promoted into the Biden administration. So the whole idea that Biden doesn’t know anything, is preposterous. It’s just not true,” Nunes added.

“They know it. They’re definitely targeting [former] president Trump because they don’t want him to run for president. Again. It’s that simple.”

After the conduct of the DOJ and the FBI during the Russia investigation, Nunes believes it is fair to question the credibility and trustworthiness of those agencies.

The agencies used “made up dirt” and “fed it into the media,” Nunes told The Epoch Times about his viewpoint of the Russia investigation.

“The media would write a story and they’d have operatives feed it into their buddies at the FBI. And so then, all of a sudden, they [the FBI] would go into court and say, ‘Oh, my gosh, look at all this. Russians everywhere with Trump. Look, we’ve got stories about it. We have all these sources,’” Nunes explained.

“The problem is, it was all a lie. None of it was true,” Nunes said. “All of it was fake and look, and still, only one FBI agent has paid the price for falsifying the document. The other people have skated.

“You’ve got this you’ve got kind of two-tiered justice system that if you’re a Democrat, you walk,” Nunes added.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/devin-nunes-sees-parallels-between-russia-investigation-and-the-raid-on-mar-a-lago_4658400.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport

Durham Had the Receipts, but the Pro-Hillary Jury Was Never Going to Convict Sussmann. Here's Why.

Durham Had the Receipts, but the Pro-Hillary Jury Was Never Going to Convict Sussmann. Here's Why.

BY MATT MARGOLIS  

AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

On Tuesday, a Washington, D.C., jury acquitted Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann of lying to the FBI, falsely claiming that he wasn’t working on behalf of a client when he delivered the bogus Trump dirt to federal agents.

Sussmann claimed that Trump had a secret communications channel with the Kremlin. FBI agents found no evidence that such a channel existed.

If you’re angry about the verdict, you should be. But you shouldn’t be all that surprised. The problem was that Sussmann’s fate was in the hands of a pro-Hillary jury, and it seemed inevitable that they would acquit him. Nearly a quarter of potential jurors that had been screened donated to Hillary’s campaign or had strong feelings about the election. This should have made them ineligible to be on the jury of her campaign lawyer.

In fact, under questioning by the prosecutor, several of these jurors were unable to confirm that their political views wouldn’t influence their views in the jury room.

“I’d like to believe not, but it’s hard to say,” one Hillary donor in the juror pool said.

Donald Trump won only 4 percent of the vote in Washington, D.C., making the possibility of a politically balanced jury virtually impossible. The Obama-appointed judge, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, didn’t seem to think that this was an issue, and simply instructed the potential jurors with pro-Clinton views that the trial wasn’t about the 2016 election.

“This case has political overtones, but Hillary Clinton is not on trial. Donald Trump is not on trial. Michael Sussmann is on trial and he deserves a fair one,” he told them.

He deserved a fair trial, for sure, but a fair trial is not one where the jury was biased in his favor.

Special Counsel John Durham had the receipts and testimony to back up his case, and it’s hard to imagine an open-minded jury looking at this evidence and acquitting him.

For example, John Durham had tangible evidence of Sussmann’s lie in the form of text messages.

“Jim – it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss,” a text message from Sussmann to the FBI reads. “Do you have availibilty [sic] for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”

In addition to that, there’s proof that Sussmann billed Hillary’s campaign for the work he did in getting the dirt and delivering it to the FBI.

There was also the testimony of FBI official James A. Baker, who said that he would have “made a different assessment” of the information Sussmann gave him had he known he had approached him on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

“It would have raised very serious questions” about “the credibility of the source,” Baker said.

Baker testified that Sussmann told him “he was coming to see me as a good citizen,” and because he was a friend and a former colleague, Baker “believed it and believed the statement was truthful.” He also testified that he wouldn’t have taken the meeting if he had known that Sussmann had been representing Hillary Clinton.

Sussman lied, and that lie was consequential. But justice wasn’t served when the jury came back with their not-guilty verdict.

As much as I expected this, I’m still furious.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2022/05/31/durham-had-the-receipts-but-the-pro-hillary-jury-was-never-going-to-convict-sussmann-n1602174

Sussmann Juror Is Talking, and It's an Eye-Opener

Sussmann Juror Is Talking, and It's an Eye-Opener

By Nick Arama |

AP Photo/Evan Vucci

As we reported earlier, Michael Sussmann was found not guilty of lying to the FBI, despite the evidence that he was working for the Clinton campaign and that he told FBI General Counsel James Baker that he was not working for any client.

That raised questions as to how, given the evidence, you get a not guilty verdict in this case? Now, part of the issue may have been judicial rulings that hindered Special Counsel John Durham’s case to some degree, as I noted. The other part may have been you likely started out with an unfavorable jury, to begin with, in D.C., but then, in this case, you also seemed to have a problem with the jury — with donors to Hillary Clinton and even one who had a child who played on a sports team with Sussmann’s daughter.

Now, the jury forewoman is talking and it’s a window into the problem here.

After the verdict, the jury forewoman, who declined to give her name, spoke to the media. She said charges should never have been filed against Mr. Sussmann in the first place.
“I don’t think it should have been prosecuted,” she said of the case. “There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.”

“It was the government’s job to prove it and they succeeded in some ways and not in others,” she continued. “We broke it down and it did not pan out in the government’s favor.”

She declined to say in which ways she thought the government succeeded and that those who would complain about the result weren’t in the jury room.

“Politics was not a factor,” she insisted.

That’s a problem — that means that she/they may have been replacing her/their own judgment about whether it should have been prosecuted at all, instead of weighing what she should have been weighing — whether or not they could find that he lied to the FBI beyond a reasonable doubt.

As George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley observed in a Twitter thread, “Telling a lie to the FBI was the entire basis for the prosecution. It was the jury’s job to determine the fact of such a lie and its materiality.” Turley allowed, “[T]his statement can be a simple criticism of the underlying charge without admitting to bias in weighing the elements. Yet, it would have prompted a challenge in the courtroom if expressed during jury selection.”

Turley had previously noted the problem with the jury.

Some blasted it as jury nullification.

That’s ultimately a big question here. Nobody can ignore that the big takeaway is that the Clinton team was behind promoting Russia collusion that damaged so much in the country–and a lot more is coming. You can present all the evidence you want, and there was plenty of evidence here. But are we going to be ever be able to hold them to account in D.C., if you have comments like this?

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/05/31/sussmann-juror-is-talking-and-its-an-eye-opener-n572978

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) on Capitol Hill on Oct. 28, 2019. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)

JUDICIARY

Nunes: Sussmann Case Revealed ‘So Much’ About Clinton, FBI

By Zachary Stieber and Iris Tao

 

0:003:18

The case of ex-Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann revealed key details about the campaign’s efforts to seed claims about Donald Trump and the FBI’s treatment of those claims, former Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) says.

“This was a really important case that got brought in D.C.—even with the verdict—because we learned so much,” Nunes, now the head of Trump’s social media company, told NTD—part of the Epoch Media Group—hours after Sussmann was acquitted.

“We learned that Clinton approved of this operation. We learned that, for sure, they were spying on Trump. We learned the FBI knew about it. We learned that the seventh floor was very interested in this case,” Nunes added.

Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager, testified during the trial that Clinton approved the plan to promote the Trump–Russia allegations to media outlets. Mook said he wasn’t sure whether Clinton approved of Sussmann taking the same information to the FBI.

Sussmann’s other client, Rodney Joffe, meanwhile, was monitoring internet data in order to obtain “derogatory information about Donald Trump,” prosecutors with special counsel John Durham’s team said.

Also during the trial, it was revealed that then-FBI Director James Comey and other bureau leaders were “fired up” about the allegations, which concerned a purported secret backchannel between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank. Senior FBI officials pressured lower-level workers to investigate the claims, even though cyber experts within a day deemed them unsupported.

Former FBI agent and federal prosecutor Marc Ruskin told NTD, that the evidence presented during the trial “will have ramifications in the future,” including Mook’s disclosures and internal FBI emails.

“Regardless of the political implications, there is a lot more knowledge, you could say, more evidence now that the public is aware of that they would not be aware of had this trial not taken place,” Ruskin said. “The evidence is now out there. And I think it’s up to the uninformed public to read it, digest it, and evaluate it and make their own determinations as to its value.”

Durham was tasked during the Trump administration to investigate the origins of the U.S. government’s widespread effort to investigate links between Trump and Russia. The effort was partially based on allegations funded by Clinton’s campaign.

Sussmann’s was the first trial stemming from the investigation. Sussmann was acquitted on May 31 on one count of lying to the FBI. He had told FBI lawyer James Baker he was bringing the Trump–Russia claims on his own accord, but later acknowledged under oath he was acting on behalf of a client.

Durham earlier secured a guilty plea from FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who admitted to doctoring an email from the CIA to say that former Trump campaign associate Carter Page was not a CIA asset, when, in fact, he was. Durham has also charged Igor Danchenko, a primary source for the anti-Trump dossier compiled by ex-British spy Christopher Steele, who was paid by Fusion GPS, a firm contracted by the campaign to conduct opposition research.

Sussmann was tried in Washington. Danchenko will go on trial later this year in Virginia.

Nunes, who unearthed much of the early evidence of wrongdoing by the government in its probe of the Trump campaign, said that Durham “presented so much evidence—overwhelming evidence—in the Sussmann trial that I’d be shocked if Durham doesn’t bring several more indictments, or possibly even a conspiracy indictment.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/nunes-sussmann-case-revealed-so-much-about-clinton-fbi_4505116.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-01-2&utm_medium=email&est=rAvwi7tVcMiKpfZXErVoVl69mtRdvETCs9By9O3z1EsRdKIeMj6G8W%2FNf1iw

Squishy Republicans Want Trump to Go Away

Squishy Republicans Want Trump to Go Away

Will Alexander

Political psychopaths who jerry-rigged scraps from Trump’s unorthodox style to create the illusion of the most hideous, racist, misogynist, homophobic, Putin-loving, Hitlerian monster that ever lived, have convinced squishy Republicans that the real Donald Trump shouldn’t run in 2024.

“This is one of the greatest political scandals in history,” Trump told Fox News on Saturday about Hillary Clinton being the likely mastermind behind the Russian Collusion hoax.  “For three years, I had to fight her off and fight those crooked people off, and you’ll never get your reputation fully back. … Where do I get my reputation back?”

But Russian Collusion was only one of a never-ending list of filthy tricks Democrats and their collaborators used to destroy Trump’s reputation since the day he was elected: the Charlottesville lie, two phony impeachments, the coverup of Hunter’s laptop, and a constant barrage of woke politicos and pundits twisting the definition of racism to flippantly smear him as a racist.  None of it was true. 

Trump’s view on the border, fossil fuels, the economy, COVID lockdowns, the Supreme Court, and so many other consequential issues have created one of the most ignored phrases in recent political history: “Trump was right.”  

But these people never stop.  For being right, they hate him even more.

When the 82-year-old speech-ripper Nancy Pelosi was asked by CNN, last week, about the leaked opinion that signaled the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade, she exposed herself as the main spigot for the strategic vitriol against Trump.

“I mean, the point is – who would have ever suspected that a creature like Donald Trump would become president of the United States,” spewed the person who, in March, praised Biden for his extraordinary leadership.  “… waving a list of judges that he would appoint, therefore getting the support of the far right and – ah – appointing those anti – dis – freedom judges to the court.”

Democrats desperately need the hideous version of Trump to keep the party glued together, and to make Trump a political virus for knee-knocking Republicans.  It’s working.

Establishment Republicans are so traumatized by the Democrat-created boogeyman of Trump; so embarrassed by Trump’s unorthodox style; so nostalgic for the superficial dignity of the good ol’ days and desperate for approval, that they’ll do anything to distance themselves from him. 

They waiting to get back to “normalcy and stability” as opposed to “lability and extremism,” as Peggy Noonan put it in her column Donald Trump and His Elusive Base in the Wall Street Journal, Thursday.   She believes a good chunk of Trump’s supporters are quietly distancing themselves from him, too.

“But there’s another, larger mood shift going on, and to me it’s the real headline,” wrote Noonan as she assessed “a real sense” of things after last week’s primaries.  “Something is changing among Trump supporters. … They won’t tell pollsters, they may not even tell neighbors, but there was a real sense of: We need Trump’s policies, but we don’t need him. … as a major backer and donor told me, it’s time to think of the future.  Mr. Trump brings ‘chaos’.”

Karl Rove, who in January chided Republicans for not coming down harder on the Jan. 6 rioters and those who “encouraged and aided the attempt to overthrow our democracy,” wrote on Wednesday that last week’s primaries confirmed that angry factions are increasingly defining both parties, and as a result “America’s politics continues to polarize. … Buckle up.”

Even columnist Kimberly Strassel, whose work I respect, seems to prefer Glenn Youngkin’s “focusing on a fix and the future” approach to politics than Trump’s combative style.  Especially when it comes to looking back at the 2020 election.

“He [Youngkin] acknowledged Mr. Biden as the legitimate president while also promising to shore up election integrity,” she wrote in her column The Limits of ‘Stop the Steal’.  Mr. Youngkin ran on a forward-looking agenda to address schools, the economy and crime – and won in a state that has leaned Democratic in recent years.  That tried-and-true formula remains the path for GOP midterms success.”

Bill Barr is reported to have said that the country doesn’t need a lame-duck president settling scores for another four years.  Two-term Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchison said at the National Governor’s Association’s winter meeting that “I do not believe Trump is the one to lead our party and our country again, as president.”  And Jacquie Baly, a political science professor at the University of Houston believes that “the insurrection” closed the 2024 window for him.

When you consider what Democrats are doing to fundamentally transform the country, “chaos,” “polarize,” and “a very harsh tone” is not extreme, but a natural reaction for a man, Trump, who loves the country, and is using every tool in his box to oppose those who are literally weakening and destroying America as we know it. 

We support him, not to be part of some idiot cult, but because he sees exactly what we see: They’re demonizing whites and American history through CRT; opening up the border in violation of federal law; normalizing an extreme LGBTQ ideology in all sectors of American life; strategically exposing school children to explicit sexual content; normalizing crime and criminalizing normal behavior; destroying the fossil fuel industry under false pretenses to stuff green policy down America’s throat; destroying the lives of people and businesses with China-inspired COVID lockdowns, mandates, and restrictions;  looking to institutionalize lockdowns with the impending WHO treaty, transforming election rules, regulations and laws to get and keep power; and abusing technology to restrict speech that’s unfavorable to Democrat government policies.  

This stuff is very extreme, and the establishment’s obsession to get back to “normal” – to get back to politics as usual – unfortunately, not only falls short but is misguided and very dangerous for the situation we’re living through.  “Normal” normalizes the arsonists who are letting the fire burn things to the ground, and these people need to be held accountable.  If a Youngkin-type, or even a Ron DeSantis runs and wins the presidency in 2024, these people will not stop.    

This may not be the Civil War, but this country is, no doubt, at war.  And establishment Republicans, with their misguided worship of orthodox politics, are completely oblivious to the situation.

They are, as journalist Walter Lippmann wrote in the 1940s, politicians who are “insecure and intimidated men.  They advance politically only as they placate, appease, bribe, seduce, bamboozle … The decisive consideration is not whether the proposition is good but whether it is popular – not whether it will work well and prove itself, but whether the active-talking constituents like it immediately.”

Through lies, deception and outright fraud, Democrats have made Donald Trump extremely unpopular among the “active-talking” people.  Squishy Republicans keep their distance and whisper their objections as the country burns to the ground.  Until someone else comes along – given the country’s dire situation – I will continue to support Trump.  He’s an axe in America’s tool kit that we set aside for emergencies. 

We’re in an emergency.

https://townhall.com/columnists/willalexander/2022/05/23/squishy-republicans-want-trump-to-go-away-n2607636